Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?

[Ridgerunner]

How dare you. Don’cha know cow flatulance contributes to global warming?

I realize you’re being ironic.

Nevertheless, let me state my reasons for not accepting that proposition and the “remedies” people pose for it.

-First of all, and just to clarify, it’s not the “flatulence” but the “belching” that emits methane. The digestive processes of ruminants like cattle, depend on fermentation in the digestive system, and that’s the source of the methane.
-There are almost certainly fewer ruminants in the U.S. now than there were in 1491. There are now approximately as many cattle in the U.S. as there were buffalo (another ruminant) in 1491. There are undoubtedly fewer other ruminants such as elk, antelope and mountain sheep. If those pre-1492 ruminants did not cause MMGW, there is no reason to think those of today do.
-Cattle sequester a lot of carbon, or cause its sequestration, depending on how they’re managed. Proper management of grasslands, when employed, results in net sequestration in several ways.
-First, the carbon-rich manure is returned to the soil.
-Second, proper grazing management results in extremely robust root growth, which puts atmospheric CO2 underground, and in massive quantities.
-Third, cattle eat carbon, sequester it in their meat, we eat the meat, sequestering it in our bodies. At death, whatever carbon we have left is sequestered in the ground through burial.
-Fourth, proper grassland management through use of hooved animals improves water retention in the soil, which has an overall cooling effect in the atmosphere above it. Hoof action also causes dead grasses to break down biologically, becoming part of the soil. Without it, dead grasses break down chemically, releasing their carbon into the atmosphere.

Finally, fully 1/3 of the liveable portions of the earth are grasslands, capable of raising no human-consumable food other than livestock. There is no compelling reason to deprive the world of the protein-rich food produced by 1/3 of the world’s surface, and particularly not when, as mentioned above, ruminants are no more the cause of MMGW than they were in 1491.

 

[dvdjs]

i do not know what you read or what all that you know, but am responding to what you write.

There is an very extensive literature on the climate change impacts of deforestation and desertification from human activities. The idea that nobody is experiencing climate change is not adequately supported by your regional observation and contradicted by regional observations elsewhere.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I must have still been asleep. However, “the more people quote you, the more you know” isn’t any more valid.

Well, yes it is valid. Especially when the people who are quoting you are recognized experts in the field.

 

[Ender]

my issue with the 97% claim is that it is 97% of those who wrote papers but when the politicians use the number it becomes 97% of scientist.

The Cook paper essentially does equate papers with scientists, which may or may not be valid, I haven’t really thought about that. The real problem, though, is the ease with which we are led to believe that “97% of papers that support AGW” means that 97% of scientists believe in AGW. Cook’s own report shows that 65% of all authors (64% of all papers) took no position on the matter, so even if his 97% claim was accurate the most that could be said is that 35% (97% of 36%) of scientists believe in AGW.

As to what those 35% actually believe, it cannot be claimed that they accept that man is responsible for most of the warming we have experienced. Given that the 35% come from three categories, including one (#2) which is defined as “Explicit endorsement without quantification” - meaning they believe humans are contributing to global warming but have expressed no position on what that contribution is - it is simply not reasonable to suggest that they are part of a 97% which believes man is responsible for most of the warming.

Nothing about this study supports the idea that 97% of climate scientists believe man is primarily responsible for global warming.

Ender

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Hi Ridge,

Thanks for the good information. I myself eat beef and many of my clients are ranchers. 'Tis a noble profession as well as being good for Mother Earth.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The idea that nobody is experiencing climate change is not adequately supported by your regional observation and contradicted by regional observations elsewhere.

Yup. So some people say. Some say otherwise, of course. But a lot of places have been degraded so that their climate has, indeed, changed. Much of Central Asia and North China come immediately to mind. Take a tract, particularly a very large one, and strip it of vegetation so the soil absorbs radiation and radiates it back into the atmosphere, and won’t absorb water anymore. Nor will the plants previously there absorb CO2 anymore. Anybody who remembers what it was previously will, I am sure, say the climate has changed, because it would have. Nearly 10% of the globe has been abused in that manner because some people don’t understand brittle environments and some don’t care.

Among those who attribute CO2 levels and climate to fossil fuel use alone, one hopes the majority are in the first category rather than the second.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Cook’s own report shows that 65% of all authors (64% of all papers) took no position on the matter, so even if his 97% claim was accurate the most that could be said is that 35% (97% of 36%) of scientists believe in AGW.

Come on, Ender. You know better than that because we have been through this before. The number of papers that don’t offer an opinion on AGW is an irrelevant figure. It is understood that the measure of agreement with AGW cited by Cook is based on a sampling of scientists - not an exhaustive questioning of every scientist in the world. It is like when a random sampling is done on public opinion. They don’t ask every single person in the population for their opinion. They ask a very small sample. Then they extrapolate to the population as a whole to say that 53% of people prefer Pepsi to Coke. And that conclusion is accepted as valid as long as the sampling method was not biased. For that reason your question about counting only publishing scientists is a more relevant one because it raises the issue of sampling bias. I frankly don’t know if that represents sampling bias or not. Are non-publishing scientists very likely to have a much different opinion on AGW than publishing ones?

But as for counting the number of papers that took no position, they are just not part of the sample. It is not different than counting the number of people that were not asked about Pepsi vs. Coke. It is irrelevant as long the sample size was statistically sufficient and there was no sampling bias. So please stop suggesting that papers that were discarded by Cook somehow represent scientists who are unsure about AGW. Just consider them as not part of the sample and let it go.

I think the only valid avenue for criticizing the Cook paper is in the definitions of the 7 levels of agreement.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thanks for the good information. I myself eat beef and many of my clients are ranchers. 'Tis a noble profession as well as being good for Mother Earth.

Thanks for the good word, pardner. And it really is good for the earth. Hooved animals don’t necessarily have to be cattle, but they’re an essential part of any ecosystem we would want to have. And the heavier ones are better for it than the lighter ones.

One more thing. Grass fed beef is better for you than grain-fed. As I understand it, the 'good" cholesterol in grass-fed is about the same as in fish, but without the mercury hazard in the latter. Grass fed, though, is hard to come by and is expensive because there’s no established supply chain. But you can buy it from some ranchers. That’s what I eat, but of course I raise my own.

 

[steve-b]

Theo520:

ROFL, if you want to make your point then man up and state your argument.

I am asking for you to apply the “norm” not leaping to your conclusions, but revealing the data that you use (and the data ignored) and the methods you use to draw conclusions about the corruption of climate scientists who are establishment in the field.

There are so many charges of corruption, dishonesty, and lack of integrity on threads like these. How solid is the factual basis for such bread charges? Why are so many skeptical of science but willing to fall right in line, uncritically, with mud thrown against them.

PS “man up”?

apparently according to science, we’ve been through 4 ice ages which in extension, presumes we’ve been through 4 global warmings. [Ice age] .

Ice ages and warmings, is based on our closeness or distance from the sun that apparently shifts back and forth over time … according to science.

 

[Theo520]

I am asking for you to apply the “norm” not leaping to your conclusions, but revealing the data that you use (and the data ignored) and the methods you use to draw conclusions about the corruption of climate scientists who are establishment in the field.

There are so many charges of corruption, dishonesty, and lack of integrity on threads like these. How solid is the factual basis for such bread charges? Why are so many skeptical of science but willing to fall right in line, uncritically, with mud thrown against them.

I responded to a very specific question, and gave a sincere answer.

There is another thread were climatologists have recently published, effectively confirming the IPCC models run hot and that warming is less than projected. The authors are not from the ‘denier’ camp, they are just acknowledging the reality of what the data indicates. They still confirm we have to make adjustments, but that we have more breathing room.
This is the sort of research that restores trust.

 

[Theo520]

There is an very extensive literature on the climate change impacts of deforestation and desertification from human activities. The idea that nobody is experiencing climate change is not adequately supported by your regional observation and contradicted by regional observations elsewhere.

Actually, most of the impact research pieces are projections about what might happen in the future,
they assume IPCC worst case scenario as a given.

It’s all good stuff to scare the children with but the volume of research has no bearing on the likelihood of it actually occurring. There is not much grant money to explore the impacts of limited and gradual warming.

 

[vz71]

So global change only happens in specific locations and not globally?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So global change only happens in specific locations and not globally?

So Trump was only elected President in specific locations and not nationally?

Makes about as much sense.

 

[dvdjs]

An increase in global average does not mean a uniform increase in every locality.

 

[dvdjs]

What is your point?

 

[dvdjs]

Actually, most of the impact research pieces

Actually, i doubt that you have a factual basis for this assertion.

 

[Theo520]

Actually, i doubt that you have a factual basis for this assertion.

I read quite a bit of climate change research. By all means dispute what I’ve said.

 

[Glark]

The earth has a history of natural cycles of heating and cooling. If it is heating now, one cannot rightly claim that it is due to pollution, because it could be due to natural heating cycle. There are two suspects, but some folks choose to ignore one and blame the other - that’s dunb at best and dishonest at worst.

 

[Ender]

The number of papers that don’t offer an opinion on AGW is an irrelevant figure.

It can hardly be irrelevant to note that 66% of scientists offered no opinion on AGW while at the same time suggesting that 97% of scientists believe the theory to be true.

Suppose one study offered an opinion that global warming was caused by improper grazing practices. Since (assume) no other paper expressed an opinion on the matter, according to you if the number of papers that don’t offer an opinion is irrelevant, the claim that 100% of climate scientists support that theory is as justifiable as Cook’s claim that 97% of scientists support AGW.

It is understood that the measure of agreement with AGW cited by Cook is based on a sampling of scientists - not an exhaustive questioning of every scientist in the world.

And based on his own sampling, 66% of scientists were silent on the question of AGW. Apparently in Cook’s world silence signifies assent.

So please stop suggesting that papers that were discarded by Cook somehow represent scientists who are unsure about AGW. Just consider them as not part of the sample and let it go.

Since those papers didn’t address the subject, nothing can be said about their position on AGW, and that includes suggesting they believe in it. Cook’s paper may have said “97% of scientists who expressed an opinion” but it has been marketed as “97% of scientists.” Even the former claim is unjustifiable; the latter one is laughable.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

I am asking for you to apply the “norm” not leaping to your conclusions, but revealing the data that you use (and the data ignored) and the methods you use to draw conclusions about the corruption of climate scientists who are establishment in the field.

There are so many charges of corruption, dishonesty, and lack of integrity on threads like these. How solid is the factual basis for such bread charges? Why are so many skeptical of science but willing to fall right in line, uncritically, with mud thrown against them.

Hi dvd,

See my post at 128.

The accusation of corruption is a just one based on evidence, much of it coming from their own mouths. e.g. Let’s use Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline. Why should I give you my data when all you want to do is find something wrong with it. I didn’t use R squared in my hockey stick study…

Read the history of climate science. Read Montford’s two books. Read Laframboise. Read Lawrence Solomon. Read Christopher Horner. Read Tim Ball. Heck, watch the 12 part series starting here:

Listen to guys like Richard Lindzen who used the C word to describe the state of climate science.

The bill of particulars lined up against the climate science establishment led by the IPCC is so long that the burden is really now on global warming advocates to give us reasons why the establishment is worthy of our trust.